Case law

Campton v. United States Department of Education (In Re Campton)

405 B.R. 887 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · May 5, 2009

Stemming from this principle, this Court has consistently espoused the maxim ... that, (1) a debt- or’s distressed state of financial affairs must be the result of events which are clearly out of their control, and (2) the … As such, the Court is unable to find that the Debtor qualifies for an “undue hardship” discharge of his educational debt under § 523(a)(8).

In Re Lee

465 B.R. 469 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Kentucky · Feb 8, 2012

All of these elements must be met to qualify as a domestic support obligation. In re Forgette, 379 B.R. 623, 625 (Bankr.W.D.Va.2007). … Here, all the debts established by the Family Court Order clearly and unequivocally qualify as domestic support ob *471 ligations.

Fryer v. Easy Money Title Pawn, Inc. (In Re Fryer)

183 B.R. 322 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Georgia · Jun 12, 1995

The testimony at hearing clearly established that these four requirements are met, hence Regulation Z is applicable to Easy Money in this transaction. Creditors must strictly comply with TILA’s requirements. Rodash v. … Arrington’s testimony established that the 25% per month fee includes 2% interest and 23% service charge, which qualifies as a finance charge under Regulation Z: The finance charge includes the following types of charges,

In Re Mims

438 B.R. 52 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Oct 27, 2010

McKinney’s Real PROPERTY Law § 258 [Schedule 0], contains a form “Assignment of Mortgage” which clearly assigns both the mortgage and the underlying debt. … As Wells Fargo has failed to prove it owns the Note, it has failed to establish that it has standing to pursue its state law remedies with regard to the Mortgage and Property. C.

In Re Wall Tube and Metal Products Co.

56 B.R. 918 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jan 17, 1986

Clearly, once the property is no longer property of the estate, any expenses thereafter incurred in connection with the property cannot qualify as administrative costs of preserving the estate. … In this connection, the court notes: [T]his statute ... clearly embodies a Congressional intention to prevent bankruptcy trustees from using the authority of the federal courts to immunize themselves from state regulation

Nosek v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co. (In Re Nosek)

363 B.R. 643 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 6, 2007

Factual Background The Court’s findings of fact were upheld by the District Court as not clearly erroneous and are briefly summarized below. 1 Ameriquest v. Nosek, 354 B.R. 331, 332 . The Debtor, Jacalyn S. … The Court declines *647 to decide whether Chapter 93A is preempted by the Bankruptcy Code because under the facts of this case, Nosek cannot establish a claim on the merits.

In Re MacK

269 B.R. 392 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · Nov 2, 2001

MINNESOTA COMMON LAW It is clearly established that section 541(c)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code was intended to preserve the status of a spendthrift trust which would be recognized by state law. Patterson v. … Patterson concerned an ERISA [7] qualified employer pension plan that did not qualify as a spendthrift trust under state law.

Silverman v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (In Re Sigmund London, Inc.)

139 B.R. 765 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · May 8, 1992

The Trustee’s papers clearly evidence that he has no intention of protecting the IRS’ interest. … In light of our conclusion we do not have to reach the sovereign immunity issue. See United States v.

Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In Re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.)

469 B.R. 415 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Apr 19, 2012

JPMC qualifies for protection under section 546(e). The Court first must consider whether JPMC is eligible for protection under section 546(e). … That subsection, like the safe harbors generally, applies only to certain types of qualifying entities.

United States Lines (S.A.), Inc. v. United States (In Re McLean Industries, Inc.)

132 B.R. 247 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Sep 17, 1991

Sovereign Immunity An action under 11 U.S.C. § 547 (b) to recover an alleged preferential transfer from a governmental unit requires a waiver of sovereign immunity. Hoffman v. … This Circuit clearly does not require an “absolute identity of factual backgrounds.” Id.

Gordon v. Taylor (In Re Taylor)

430 B.R. 305 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · Mar 18, 2010

To establish willfulness, the plaintiff must show that the defendants “intentionally committed the violative act.” Id. at 1555 . … Trustee only denies that the security deed bears a clearly visible notary attestation.

In re Earned Income Tax Credit Exemption Constitutional Challenge Cases

477 B.R. 791 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas · Aug 2, 2012

Congress clearly knows how to limit or restrict state law exemptions in bankruptcy cases. … Brockelman, 478 F.Supp. 141 (D.Kan.1979) (creditor’s garnishment of tax refund in hands of IRS was barred by sovereign immunity, citing Buchanan v.

In Re Shebel

22 B.R. 9 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Vermont · May 24, 1982

The Legislative History clearly indicates that persons who receive pensions, welfare, and various government provided benefits qualify as individuals with regular income. … Failure in payments is the inevitable result. *11 In sun), the Debtors have failed to establish good faith in the proposal of the Plan and their ability to make all of the payments.

In Re Bankwest Boulder Industrial Bank

82 B.R. 559 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado · Jan 29, 1988

General knowledge of a reorganization proceeding, or of a bankruptcy case, clearly does not substitute for notice and opportunity for a hearing. Id. at 622 . … A second key section relevant to bankruptcy is that which establishes and controls the IBSGC (C.R.S. §§ 11-22-201 and 517).

American Freight System, Inc. v. Valiant Products Corp. (In re American Freight System, Inc.)

185 B.R. 345 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas · Aug 8, 1995

In fact, it does not appear that either defendant has attempted to establish all the criteria required to qualify as a small-business concern under 15 U.S.C.A. § 632 (a)(1) and (2). See Scroggins v. … In a summary judgment decision, Chief District Judge Van Bebber of this district ruled a shipper had established that it was a qualified small-business concern under the NRA and said it did not need to make any additional

In Re Perry

267 B.R. 759 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · Apr 12, 2001

Does the 26 Acre Tract Qualify as Perry’s Rural Homestead? … Without evidence of any such an intent, this Court is reluctant to overrule 100 years of established Texas case law. Davis, 152 B.R. at 135 ; see also U.S. v.

Hillen v. City of Many Trees (In re CVAH, Inc.)

570 B.R. 816 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Idaho · May 2, 2017

Via these pleadings, the legal issue is clearly framed: Under § 544(b)(1), may a bankruptcy trustee employ the transfer avoidance provisions, including the extended reach-back periods, provided in either the FDCPA and IRC … Because of this, Trustee is immune from Idaho’s fraudulent transfer extinguishment period.

Casano v. Internal Revenue Service (In re Casano)

473 B.R. 504 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · May 16, 2012

It was the IRS’s deficiency assessments which established the basis for its right to collect these taxes. … Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766, 774-79 (1984), aff'd 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir.1986) to determine whether a document filed with the IRS qualified as a “return” for tax purposes.

Lakeman v. Weed (In re Weed)

479 B.R. 533 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 18, 2012

If the facts and circumstances establish the award as “in the nature of’ child support, it qualifies. … that such order would be clearly inappropriate.

Plains Cotton Cooperative Ass'n v. Julien Co. (In Re Julien Co.)

141 B.R. 359 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Tennessee · Mar 23, 1992

Finally, it clearly may not be concluded that the DSO’s qualify as instruments because, again by their terms, they do not evidence an unconditional right to the payment of money as required by UCC § 9 — 105(l)(i) and 3-104 … From this discussion, it is evident that whether or not the DSO’s are “general intangibles” under the UCC is of little relevance because they clearly do not qualify as proper subjects for a possessory security interest under